 Yeah, good evening friends. And once you have a knowledge sharing from a person like a who's a resource person like Mr. Jay Jay Kumar as part of a senior advocate and who has been passionate about taking law to a different level. It's always quite encouraging to learn the nuances of law from a person like Mr. Jay Kumar. And we had a topic where we had always received messages as to who could explain the principles and the subtle differences between the election disputes under the society acts and the corporate society. Therefore, we had requested through a crime who is based in Karnataka to help us to connect with Mr. Jay Kumar because his name was quite coming across with us as to if we have to speak someone and have knowledge sharing. And therefore we had requested and he acceded to our request. Therefore the session of today on the disputes in the election positions of In respect of the societies act and the corporate society that we have tied up with three criminal associates. I'll request Mr. Trikram the, what we say sutradha for the session to connect with us share his knowledge with what he has insights of Mr. Jay Kumar. As such in respect of the knowledge etc. And then we will request Mr. Jay Kumar to share his knowledge and he is also kind enough to agree to take the questions from the participants on the YouTube as well as on this platform. What do you think? Thank you Vika sir. And my heartfelt thanks to senior advocate Jay Kumar as part in surf for accepting our invite. This was spending for very long time and we wanted a talk addressed by the learner senior advocate. And finally that day has come on my personal behalf and on behalf of Mr. Vikas Chhatrat extend a very warm welcome to you sir. Thank you. Thank you. See my other brother advocates and other participants are very warm welcome to you as well. Also see one of the Leonard H.C.GPs from Calaburgi has joined Mr. Shanobar Sapa party. Very warm welcome to you also sir. Over to you sir. Thank you. Thank you. The of course Mr. Trilokinath said it was a long wait. It was not so in the sense of course it was about a month back that I received a invite. Adjusting time and necessarily it has to be a weekend so that we are free with the relatively free so that it was arranged for today. Of course it could have been a week earlier anyway it was arranged for today. Now the of course the placing it today also makes a difference for the reason day before yesterday in the parliament they have introduced an amendment act. Amendment bill to multistate cooperative societies act and that amendment relates to several of the provisions regarding holding of election in multistate cooperative societies. So a brief reference to that also can be made but it may take a further time for that amendment to come into force. Though as regards the election the disputes with regard to election and resolution of those disputes. The provisions under the societies registration act all over India including in the Central Act of 1860. Relatively the enactment itself are very skeletal. They don't provide any special machinery for resolution of election dispute leaving the matter to be done or rather taken to civil court itself. Of course anything which is not barred under any statute civil court would be the forum it is in that way. In fact in the Central Act as well as the act societies act in all the states they don't even provide the tenure of the governing committee. They don't statutorily it is not provided tenure or the holding of election manner and method of holding election. None of these things are provided either under the Central Act or any other enactment of the societies registration act in any state. All these matters are left for the bylaws or the rules and regulations that are framed by those societies themselves. Therefore in the societies there is no uniform tenure or term. There are several societies where the elected term will be one year, three year or five year like that. Even there there is no authority, statutory authority provided for the purpose of holding election. It is the society and their bylaw which provides for holding manner of holding either in the annual general body or in any general body. Voting, filing of nominations, scrutiny none of those things are statutorily provided. They are all left for the individual society to provide for in its bylaw. Therefore all those things as provided in the bylaw is something like a contract between the members and the society. In the Central Act even to the extent that all that is required to be done is you are required to file a statement after the annual general body naming the or giving the name and address of the persons in the governing body managing committee or executive committee by whatever name you call. They don't say elected members also. Therefore it can be in any manner it could be done but in all the acts there is one word used that members voting rights shall not be curtailed except on some giving reasons which indicates that the executive committee will have to be an elected body. So in that manner an elected body whenever there is an elected body naturally there will be question of how any dispute pertaining to elections are to be resolved. There are some central societies, multi-state societies registered under the Central Act who have opted to say in their bylaw that any dispute relating to election shall be referred to arbitration and the arbitrator names or the forum of arbitration is also provided. But that appears to be now a difficult situation with the arbitration act 1996 arbitration and consolation act coming into force. There are several restrictions. It is actually made for a commercial litigation rather than election disputes. But anyway such bylaws are framed where it is election dispute is also to be done under the arbitration consolation act or the method provided under the arbitration consolation act. In some of the states particularly in Uttar Pradesh they have made an amendment to the society's registration act that providing amended provision under section 25 of course which will be applicable only in Uttar Pradesh providing for election dispute being resolved by the district registrar or the registrar of societies. Of course even that it is hedged with condition that it should be the dispute should be raised by the society or one third of the number of members or one third of half of majority of the managing committee members such hedged conditions are provided. Therefore there will not even that cannot be taken as a proper in election dispute resolution system. Then even in that case matter will have to go to only civil court. In all other states a provision is made under section 25 of the society's registration act of the respective states which provides for an inquiry into the constitution working and finance of the society. It is the district registrar or an authority nominated by him who will be holding the inquiry. This power several times is being misused as if this is the power for deciding disputes. Actually this is not a provision which is adjudicatory or adversarial. If an election dispute is to be resolved naturally the elected members will have to be made party. Some procedure will have to be adopted to say election is upheld or election is the set aside such a thing is not made under section 25. The inquiry provision made under section 25 is not for resolving election dispute and it has to be done only under the civil court. Such a situation came up before the Karnataka High Court in one of the matter. Court has held section 25U is not a dispute resolution system like a adversarial system. It is to be it and it will not explicitly or impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the civil court and matter will have to be decided in the civil court. So relatively for societies registration act with regard to election with regard to holding of election as well as resolving of the election dispute it is entirely left to the bylaw to be framed by those societies. All the societies have framed bylaw for holding election in the annual general meeting or in the general meeting. Next what they have provided is very few societies have provided in their bylaw for dispute resolution election dispute resolution by arbitration and otherwise it is left to civil court. There is as I already stated there is one provision section 25U for holding an inquiry which would result in a report being given communicated to the society etc. But that is not a adversarial or adjudicatory provision therefore it is only a civil suit in the jurisdictional or territorial jurisdiction civil court to which parties may have to approach with regard to election, suspension all those things under the societies registration act. And only provision that one other provision in those acts is a provision enabling the state government to appoint administrator. It is provided wherever there are disputes or whenever governance is not proper in such situations it is provided that the government after giving opportunity or after holding an inquiry etc can appoint an administrator. Appointment of administrator in a way amounts to setting aside the election because the elected body will be removed. The administrator who takes over at the end of his period will have to hold fresh election. Of course that is one provision though not a provision for deciding the election disputes. There is a provision where state noticing that it is governance or election is not properly held or for any other reason can appoint an administrator removing the elected body and holding a fresh election. Probably it is the provisions are so skeletal in the societies registration act because under the state enactments as well as the central enactment every association or every society is not required to be registered unless it is a society which pertains to a charitable or establishing educational institutions or for diffusion of knowledge, scientific knowledge or for propagating artworks etc. Objects are given which is to be only such of those associations or societies can be registered under the act. Other societies are not required to be registered. They remain unregistered societies having their own bylaw therefore in those cases also it would be only the civil court which will go into which can take up the matter pertaining to election. It is actually in that Nagari Pracharani Sabha 1991 supplement to SCC page 36 where the matter was dealt with under the UP Act where as I already told you some amendment is made providing for election dispute. Even in that case Supreme Court pointed out that is a conditional provision therefore it is the civil court is the therefore with regard to societies registration act it can be taken that it is the bylaw of individual society which determines the procedure for election, tenure, everything. It can also provide for dispute resolution by reference to arbitration or not if no such thing is provided matter as to civil court. But when it comes to cooperative society it is from long back for more than 70, 80 years or even 100 years in that way the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act all those things it's more than 100 years. Even right from the beginning a provision for statutory provision for holding of election or holding the election mandatory was made in the act itself. Now under the cooperative societies act all over India each different state all of them have specific provision for holding of election. After this amendment adding part 9A which of course is now struck down. Though it is applicable in respect of multi state societies. An authority called as election a cooperative election authority is created under all the state enactments which is an independent body like election commission etc an independent body which will conduct the election. Prior to the this 2013 amendment part 9A and the consequent amendment in the state enactments detailed procedure with regard to holding of election was not. Enacted of course in some states rules provided for all those enactments procedure etc but it was skeletal now after this. 97th amendment now it is provided for holding election at least current practice etc some such thing scrutiny all those things are now statutorily provided under the rules. The prior to this 97th amendment itself it was felt or perceived that state has been playing an active role in the governance and interfering with the autonomous functioning of the cooperative societies. Therefore it was thought there should be another enactment providing for societies where there will be no investment by the state no assistance by the state monetarily and it should be left to the cooperative societies registered under those enactments that. They can as a managed by themselves. In that manner. Karnataka under Pradesh Telangana and even Maharashtra have provided a separate enactment in Karnataka it is called as so hard the Sahakari act in this. The. Initially when the enactment was introduced in 98. It was provided that. Election shall be held 10 years shall be five years election dispute is to be decided by the registrar as provided under section 39 of the act. But as it was said that it's not a matter wherein any departmental participation should be brought in. Another amendment was introduced to the so hard the acts corresponding acts in different states where now a specific provision is made in Karnataka that the election disputes under so hard that is cooperative. It's called as cooperative. So hard the cooperative election disputes under that enactment are now specifically provided that it shall be by the civil court. That is in respect of an enactment where state government will not invest state government will not participate in any way financially that provision is made. Otherwise. Regular cooperative societies act which has been existing. At least in all the states from 1959 onwards each state is having its own act course in Maharashtra there was earlier enactment Bombay act which is continued in that way. In all these. The thrust has been whether it is election or any other dispute what was the main thrust is it should be resolved amongst themselves within the parameters of cooperative societies act. Therefore. In all the cooperative societies act initially with regard to election that election should be hide was one of the provision. Term was provided. One year then it was increased to three year. Now it is uniformly five years all over the all over India. Now an authority is also named that is cooperative election authority and independent authority which will hold the election elaborate procedure. At least almost 50 to 60% of the procedure as provided under the representation of people's act is adopted under the rules in Karnataka rule 14. Rule 14 14 a to 14 jet 14 a a to a a to a l they provide elaborate procedure they have a in a way they have adopted everything every rule of course in a simplified form. From what is provided under the representative of people's act 1951 tenure is now statutorily fixed. It is five years. Election is to behave the superintendent's direction and control of election is also statutorily provided it is cooperative election authority. If any this thing is has not held the election. Penal provisions are provided if they don't assist in holding the election penal provisions are provided. Next what is done is with regard to dispute election dispute resolution election dispute resolution is now taken to section 70. That is arbitration or a dispute resolution system provided under the cooperative societies act all over the country uniformly they have provided in Karnataka it is section 70 in some acts it is section 39 but anyway it is same thing where the election dispute is to be referred to registrar. Of course depending on the area of operation of the society the power of the registrar will be delegated to assistant registrar of cooperative society like that deputy registrar joint registrar higher the area of operation higher the authority is provided. There it is a regular dispute resolution system where it is filed as a case. Parties are made issuing of notice. Recording of evidence though not like a civil court recording just of evidence like summary inquiry is provided cross examination is provided. And the decision against which there will be an appeal to appellate tribunal which will have one judicial member. Normally appellate tribunal functions with two members one judicial member of the rank of district judge or senior civil judge. And a member from cooperative department so an appeal is provided. In that way a complete dispute resolution system pertaining to even elections is provided under the cooperative societies act. Added to that what has been done is in section 70 where the dispute is to be referred to the registrar and in section 118 I am referring to Karnataka provisions similar provisions are available in all the enactments of all the states. It provides that any dispute or any subject matter which is to be referred to the registrar the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. Therefore under the cooperative societies act election dispute cannot be taken to civil court. So only way of resolving the election dispute is raising of election dispute referring it to the registrar. Now a system has in a way improved they have like courts they have provided for filing a filing counter court fee all those things are provided. They have also provided that the sittings will be on two days or three days a week 3 o'clock or 10 o'clock etc. In that way a complete adjudicatory system is provided under the cooperative societies act all over India. In that it is not about the system or adequacy but the difficulty that has been experienced by the parties or the cooperative societies and the members therein is about the radibility of this adjudicatory authorities. There is a general impression that these disputes these authorities who are called upon to resolve or decide these disputes are open to political interference. As an advocate who has been practicing on this side on this side for all these years I do feel that though statute provides for a independent system it has not been able to get out of a sort of control by the government. That in a sense means the ruling party in that way it has not been able to generate the required confidence among the members that there is a dispute it is it can be referred to the authority. There will be a decision an independent decision without the interference or influence of authorities etc that confidence building is not there because that is something lacking in the system itself. Otherwise it is actually a statutorily provided system and way back in 60s itself there are judgments which said though specific rules of procedure are not provided with regard to election and resolving of election disputes. The authorities are to proceed to decide these election disputes on the basis of justice, equity and good conscience by following the long line of precedents. General precedents which are available under the representation of people's act is how there are decisions which say but to make this system of resolution effective what is required is to remove that general perception that the system is in a way controlled by political influence or something that has to be removed so that it becomes a proper adjudicatory system particularly because they have barred the jurisdiction of the civil court. Once you bar the jurisdiction of the civil court the forum that you provide should be though not equivalent at least it should be somewhat comparable to the adjudications that are done in a regular course that are set up. It is that which is which has to be kept in mind otherwise now any election dispute under the cooperative society side in all the states has to be resolved under that statute itself which is which refers the dispute to the registrar. There again there is one more difficulty the registrar or the official who is a delegate conferred with the power of registrar have executive power dealing with the society's disqualification several other powers and least of the attractive power is resolving of the dispute. So none of the officials would spare their time for deciding these disputes unless they are forced to. There are several executive powers under the act execution several things which which where their discretion is not controlled where they are not required to elaborately hear the parties etc. Therefore that is also one of the drawback which may have to be addressed so that maybe depending on the work of election disputes or other disputes in a district or a taluka they may have to provide an officer specifically for these things. If that improvement is done then there is the forum that is provided can be of really assistance of course there is an appeal other drawbacks in that will not matter because even if we are to go to civil court. It will take its own time for election dispute to be resolved even under the archway act where the election tribunal is the high court. Even that many a times it will not be the decision will not come before the expiry of the term. Therefore that is not a drawback in that sense but this this improvement if it is done definitely the dispute resolution can be made a little easier and effective. Coming to the multi state cooperative societies act up to this day that is now they have introduced an amendment otherwise it is very skeletal which says hold the election in annual general meeting. There is nothing else that is provided as the things stand even tenure of five years three years everything is left for the societies under their bylaw to determine and dispute resolution interestingly has been provided in a very rather it's a difficult thing. What has been provided is dispute is to be referred to the registrar. Registrar will then appoint an arbitrator who will follow the procedure or who will function as an arbitrator under the arbitration and consolation act 1996. It is something very things do not remain under control and it is now the procedure as now provided under the multi state cooperative societies act lacks efficacy in the procedure. But in all these cooperative societies there is a specific effort to see that all these things are statutorily provided and conduct of election dispute resolution everything is done under that statute. Whereas under the societies registration act all that it thrust is try to the provisions are sought to be made are very skeletal leaving it to the members in their bylaw to provide for and decide all these things with regard to manner of holding election everything. So under the cooperative societies dispute resolution is now by the registrar that is an official appointed under the act by the state government civil court jurisdiction is barred this appears to be the provision all over India in all the states. The efficacy probably depends on in each state might be according to the situation there but there is a feeling that this is efficacy or the confidence in that system has come down because of political interference. Or the officers were to decide one thing and the officers also find this deciding these adversarial litigation is least attractive of the powers that are vested in comfort on them under the act. So I think with this if there is a if there is any doubts or any clarifications we can go for that. So it was quite enriching session and one of the biggest hallmarks of a good advocate is to maintain the sanctity of time. And as we see just a syndication call and all the judges saying that time has come where even in the court one has to go with the timeline. So like you said, like we have heard the session, can you say that it is a both these society acts and the corporate society acts, a self contained court, like, or you said that there are certain niches are there or does it request some judicial interference and interpretation that how it can be plugged because rightly said even in the election law we have seen that people complete the term. And it's the only way you feel it's more like a ritualistic formality that you have put it a challenge but ultimately you don't succeed because of the flux of term. The judges say don't let's not get into the academic exercise. Co-operative societies act with regard to holding of election and dispute resolution. It is in all the states, it is a complete code. They bar the civil court jurisdiction. They bar the jurisdiction of any other authority. It is definitely a complete code with regard to manner and method of conducting the election manner and method of resolving the dispute pertaining to the elections. Societies Registration Act, probably the legislature has left it to the members to develop their own procedure. They are in all the act, including the Central Act. It's only a skeletal framework that is provided for registration. So you feel that the skeletal is a conscious decision or does it require some planning? It's a conscious decision. They have left it to the members to have their own way of doing the term tenure manner of conducting because what actually probably thought of is they are bodies of a very small membership, 100, 300 or 200 like that. Therefore, they should arrange their affairs. Only in the entire Societies Registration Act, only provision that requires is you are required to file a list of names and addresses of the members of managing committee or executive committee, whatever you call. Every year with the district registrar, only statutory provision that is there is that much. There is no other provision at all. Because we largely find that a lot of people are ousted majority deposits. They are saying that your name has been struck down from the society. Society. That becomes quite a challenge. Now, even though societies have been in Karnataka, even that society registered under the Societies Registration Act, they are now allowed to take up this land development and distributing sites to their members. Once that was permitted, those societies have now become an area of extraordinary real estate dispute places. Therefore, that is something where even the voluntary societies which were meant to be for art or the scientific diffusion of scientific knowledge, charity, etc. have now become the sort of business centers which may require some sort of control or statutory guidelines like provision for holding election, etc. But anyway, legislature, even now they have left the societies to have their affairs according to their bylaw, framed by them only. There is a question by Sanchand. When a registrar is in an inquiry into Section 25, comes to a clear conclusion that there is a Premavchai error in conducting the elections to a particular society. Now, what is the remedy for the complainant? As far as Section 25 is concerned, in all the Societies Registration Act, he cannot set aside the election. That is, there is no adversarial proceeding, there is no hearing or adjudication. What happens is, what can be done is, if he finds that constitution working is not proper, in that way he can go into the question whether election was held properly. All that he can do is, he can recommend it to the government that in this society, affairs are not done properly or election is not held properly. Therefore, government should consider appointing administrator. But he cannot set aside election. It has to go to civil court only. The complainant cannot get individual relief under Section 25 under the Societies Registration Act. So, what about the rigid jurisdiction after Radhe Krishnade says, Justice Chandraju's judgment, they say that there is a breach of principles of natural justice. There is a clear facet, then you need not relegate to an alternative remedy. Now, if the registrar records a finding, necessarily regarding election, if he is to record a finding for setting aside the election, the persons who have succeeded in the election have to be made a party. The inquiry will have to be a case to case basis. Such a provision is not made under the Societies Registration Act. Therefore, even if they are to come to High Court under 226, question of election being set aside will not be there. But there are cases where inquiry report says elections are not properly conducted, this is not done properly, that is not done properly. Maybe the writ court might say government to consider the report, whether it would be a case for appointing administrator. If administrator is appointed, effect is elected body is removed, there will be fresh election. Of course, after some time or after six months, three months, whatever is the administrator's period. But it is not a case of setting aside election. I think question by Mrs. Reshma Tamaya. Under section 27A, if an administrator is appointed to convene an election between two rival groups and in spite of time to time extension of his tenure, he is still unable to convene elections. What happens next? Of course, it's only jurisdiction that is available. There will be direction or the timeline fixed by the court, then content proceedings. This Sahana Shetty, considering that election disputes need a considerable time within a timeline, need to be considered within a timeline. What civil court serve an effective forum for election disputes? Under the Society Registration Act, even if you are to create another set of adjudicatory body, it may not be different from what the court is. Again, there will be a regular filing and the timeline, I don't think it will be possible to adhere to timeline. Because under the Cooperative Society Act, now there is a forum specifically provided. But with all that, unless there is some goading or some influence, the election disputes even there are not decided within the term. This is again Seema Naik and what circumstances can we go directly to the High Court? Of course, High Court jurisdiction is something for Cooperative Society election matter. There is no question of anybody going directly to the High Court because they are not state. They are not state under Article 12. But if we try to give some color to the effect that in terms of public duty. So we can say that Cooperative Society is the extended arm of the... It's normal and all those things we educates, we do it. But the difficulty there, even there is, it's in a very little, very few number of cases where the High Court can say, No, no, you are not followed this in holding the election. You are not given the required time for filing the nomination. Therefore, election is set aside. Otherwise, setting aside of election depends on the evidence, which is something which is not done under the jurisdiction. This is Santosh Gowde. He says, in case you approach by way of a writ, does state become a necessary and proper party for the purposes of a writ petition? No, not under election disputes. Of course, now there will be a party that is election authority may have to be made a party because ultimately, whether it is if the election is set aside, holding a fresh election, etc., is now an independent authority, like election authority. But it's not state. But in large number of cases, the Supreme Court judgment of 2017 would say that once it is a tribunal, etc., they do not have to defend their action because it's a crusade. Usually, you need not a plea. So you feel one should plead? No, state as such has no role to play under the Statute of Cooperative Societies Act with regard to holding of election, etc. Of course, there can be some sort of appointment of administrator, extending the term of administrator, etc., is done by the state. In that way, in some cases, state might become necessary party. Otherwise, state as such in the election dispute, it is not a necessary, neither necessary nor proper party. We have discussed a lot of issues because some people who are not lawyers would like to understand. What do you mean by appointment of an administrator and when is the situation when the administrator is appointed? Under the Societies Registration Act, it can be appointed where elections are not held timely. By-law says it should be annually. Suppose it is not held, there can be an appointment of administrator. Or in a given case, elections are held but in an inquiry under section 25, the authority finds that it was farce of an election. There was no properly held election, etc. It can recommend it to the state government to consider whether appointment of administrator is necessary. We have also discussed a lot of times adversarial litigation. Would you explain that for a common man? I did not get the question. We have a lot of times said that it is an adversarial type of litigation. Yes, adversarial litigation is there will be a complainant, there will be a respondent who defends his election. Under section 25, it is an inquiry to affect finding authority for themselves. I am a candidate. I am defeated. I filed an election petition saying the election which is held or rejection of my nomination was wrong, etc. That is, there will be another party which says, no, no, what has been done is proper. That is adversarial litigation, plaintiff and defendant. Petitioner, respondent. Thank you. We have already received a post that it says it's an experimentation. Before we conclude, I will request to the club to share his vote of thanks. Thank you, Mr. Vikas. Once again, sir, it was a very erudite presentation. I have enriched us with a lot of knowledge with regard to the topic of discussion. On my personal behalf and behalf of Mr. Vikas Chathrat and Beyond Law CLC, I am so grateful to you, sir. Thank you so much. Thank you. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Varun. In fact, he has been the connecting point between us. Mr. Chathrat was telling me that I am the connecting point. For me, Mr. Varun was the connecting point. Many thanks to him. Many thanks to all the participants. Thank you one and all. People on the chat box have started writing the fantastic sessions. Rather, we would like to say that whenever we take the sessions, the feedback on the right side or on the WhatsApp helps us to encourage better and speakers like Mr. Jay Kumar. I was telling him. We should also thank Mr. Vijay Kumar A. Patil. Sir is a government advocate who appears in the principal bench chair in Bengaluru. And incidentally, he was my teacher in my law school. Thank you for your participation, sir. Thank you to all the participants. Thank you.